Citation NR: 9702325
Decision Date: 01/24/97 Archive Date: 02/07/97
DOCKET NO. 96-37 100 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin
THE ISSUE
Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: The American Legion
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
Nicholas M. Auricchio, Associate Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran had active service from April 1942 to December
1945.
This appeal to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA or Board)
arises from an April 1996 rating decision issued by the
Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin which denied entitlement to service connection for
bilateral hearing loss.
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL
The veteran contends that the RO was incorrect in not
granting the benefit sought on appeal. In support of this
contention, the veteran maintains that he was exposed to
acoustic trauma and/or a head trauma in service, and that he
now has bilateral hearing loss as a result thereof.
DECISION OF THE BOARD
The Board, in accordance with the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A.
§ 7104 (West 1991 & Supp. 1995), has reviewed and considered
all of the evidence and material of record in the veteran's
claims file. Based on its review of the relevant evidence in
this matter, and for the following reasons and bases, it is
the decision of the Board that the record supports service
connection for bilateral hearing loss.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. All relevant evidence necessary for an equitable
disposition of the claimant's appeal has been obtained by the
RO.
2. Bilateral hearing loss resulted from acoustic trauma
sustained in service.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Bilateral hearing loss was incurred in service. 38 U.S.C.A.
§§ 1110, 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.385
(1995).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
As a preliminary matter, the Board notes that the veteran’s
claim is well grounded within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A.
§ 5107(a) (West 1991). That is, the Board finds that he has
presented a claim which is plausible and capable of
substantiation. The Board is also satisfied that all relevant
facts have been properly developed. No further assistance to
the veteran is required to comply with the duty to assist as
mandated by 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a).
In general, service connection may be granted for a
disability resulting from disease or injury incurred or
aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 1991).
Additionally, if a condition noted during service is not
determined to be chronic, then generally a continuity of
symptomatology after service is required for service
connection. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b).
When, after careful consideration of all the evidence of
record, a reasonable doubt arises regarding service origin,
or any other point, such doubt will be resolved in favor of
the claimant. 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.
A review of the record indicates the veteran has reported a
history of noise exposure while performing his duties as an
airplane engine mechanic in service. He also asserts that as
a result of falling from a truck in service, he was treated
in service for hearing loss as secondary to a head injury.
Based on the Board’s review of the veteran’s service medical
records, there is no evidence of the veteran being treated
for hearing loss in service. Although service medical
records show that the veteran was treated in September 1944
for a head injury as the result of a fall from a truck, there
is no evidence of the veteran being treating for hearing loss
caused by that injury. Additionally, the veteran’s
separation examination report indicates the veteran had
normal hearing on separation from service in December 1945.
After separation from the service, the veteran worked for a
private company in machine repair for approximately 17 years.
The Board notes that post-service medical records show that
the veteran, after being treated for bacterial meningitis and
otitis media at St. Francis Hospital, was first diagnosed in
March 1985 with hearing loss. Moreover, the March 1996
medical opinion provided by a VA Rating Board Physician,
indicates that there was no evidence of inservice hearing
loss as secondary to the veteran’s fall from a truck. That
physician, however, did not consider whether the veteran may
have suffered from acoustic trauma from working as an
airplane engine mechanic in service.
In June 1996, the veteran was accorded a VA ear examination.
The veteran reported subjective complaints of decreased
auditory acuity over the years and especially after his bout
with bacterial meningitis in 1985. The examiner noted that
the veteran served in the military as an airplane engine
mechanic and was exposed to much loud noise. He also
acknowledged that there would be difficulty in determining
the cause of the veteran’s hearing loss due to the gap in
medical documentation for hearing loss between his separation
from service in 1945 and the first recorded documentation of
hearing loss in 1985. In considering the foregoing, he
opined that the veteran’s hearing loss is ”multi-factorial.”
Although the examiner acknowledged that the veteran’s hearing
was found to be within normal limits on separation in 1945,
he also stated that “exit audiograms in the 1940’s were
relatively rudimentary and did not address pure-tone levels
in the higher frequency ranges.” Thus, he opined that the
veteran’s 1945 audiogram is not conclusive of whether the
veteran suffered from hearing loss at discharge. He also
opined that the veteran “may have indeed, because of his role
as an airplane engine mechanic had a mild to high frequency
sensorineural hearing loss which was not detected with
audiometric testing at that time.” The examiner recommended
that formal audiometric testing be given to the veteran and
an addendum added to his examination report.
Upon being given the subsequent VA audiometric examination in
June 1996, the veteran’s pure tone thresholds, in decibels,
were reported as follows:
HERTZ
500
1000
2000
3000
4000
RIGHT
30
50
70
70
85
LEFT
35
45
65
65
70
Pure tone threshold levels averaged 61 decibels for the left
ear and 69 decibels for the right ear. Speech audiometry
revealed speech recognition ability of 52 percent in the
left ear and 48 percent in right ear. The summary of
audiologic test results described the veteran’s condition as
sensorineural hearing loss of both ears, approximately
symmetrical, reduced word recognition. The examiner remarked
that the veteran’s hearing loss “appeared to be more
consistent with the veteran’s age and noise exposure than
from head trauma during the veteran’s military service.”
Further, the examiner remarked that the “evidence suggests
normal hearing upon discharge.”
Under these circumstances, the Board may legitimately
question whether chronicity of symptomatology is adequately
supported. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 3.303(b); Mense v. Derwinski, 1
Vet.App. 354, 356 (1991). The veteran may overcome the
chronicity of symptomatology hurdle if the veteran is given a
post-service initial diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss and
evidence relates this current condition to the veteran’s
period of service. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d); Hensley v.
Brown, 5 Vet.App. 155, 158 (1993).
Based on the June 1996 VA audiologic test results showing
that the veteran has bilateral hearing loss, a post-service
initial diagnosis of this condition has been established.
See id. The Board, consistent with the Hensley decision,
must next determine if this post-service initial diagnosis of
hearing loss was related to the veteran’s period of service.
The examiner, in the June 1996 VA audiometric report,
remarked that the veteran’s hearing loss is more consistent
with age and “noise exposure” than from the head trauma in
service. He did not elaborate on whether the veteran's
hearing loss was caused by “noise exposure” from working as
an airplane engine mechanic in service. However, in the June
1996 VA examination report, the examiner specifically opined
that the veteran may have incurred “mild to moderate high
frequency sensorineural hearing loss” in service due to
working as an “airplane engine mechanic,” noting that a
normal audiogram at the time of the veteran’s discharge was
not conclusive of completely normal hearing upon discharge
from service. Additionally, the veteran, himself, has
related a history of acoustic trauma from working as an
airplane engine mechanic in service. See Hayes v. Brown, 9
Vet.App. 67, 72 (1996). Thus, there is evidence of record
relating the veteran’s post-service initial diagnosis of
bilateral hearing loss to his service period. See 38 C.F.R.
§ 3.303 (d); Hensley, 5 Vet.App. at 158.
Based on the foregoing, a reasonable doubt is raised as to
whether the veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was incurred in
service. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(d); Hensley, 5
Vet.App. at 158. Accordingly, resolving that doubt in the
veteran's favor, the Board concludes that the veteran’s
bilateral hearing loss is of service origin.
ORDER
Service connection for bilateral hearing loss.
RAYMOND F. FERNER
Acting Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals
The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures
Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, 741
(1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to
be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a
determination. This proceeding has been assigned to an
individual member of the Board.
NOTICE OF APPELLATE RIGHTS: Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7266 (West
1991 & Supp. 1996), a decision of the Board of Veterans'
Appeals granting less than the complete benefit, or benefits,
sought on appeal is appealable to the United States Court of
Veterans Appeals within 120 days from the date of mailing of
notice of the decision, provided that a Notice of
Disagreement concerning an issue which was before the Board
was filed with the agency of original jurisdiction on or
after November 18, 1988. Veterans' Judicial Review Act,
Pub. L. No. 100-687, § 402, 102 Stat. 4105, 4122 (1988). The
date which appears on the face of this decision constitutes
the date of mailing and the copy of this decision which you
have received is your notice of the action taken on your
appeal by the Board of Veterans' Appeals.
- 2 -